UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`I, Benjamin B. Bederson, hereby declare the following:
`
`1. My name is Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D and I am over 21 years of age
`
`and otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on
`
`facts and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by
`
`others.
`
`2.
`
`I submitted an initial declaration in support of Apple’s petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (“the ’949 Patent”). I understand the
`
`PTAB instituted the requested review and that the proceeding involves the full scope
`
`of the proposed grounds addressed in my initial declaration. I have been asked to
`
`address a few additional issues in response to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 10)
`
`and Patent Owner’s expert’s declaration (Ex. 2002).
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner identifies no technical barriers to implementing a
`combination of Numazaki’s gesture recognition and videoconference
`functionalities
`3.
`In my original declaration, I described the reflected light extraction unit
`
`of Numazaki’s first embodiment, and I explained why a PHOSITA would have
`
`understood both the third and fifth embodiments use it. To start, I described the
`
`reflected light extraction unit with reference to Numazaki’s Fig. 2, describing it as a
`
`“two-camera structure for detecting a user’s gestures.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 34. I proceeded
`
`to describe how the reflected light extraction unit relies on a timing control unit to
`
`turn lighting unit 101 on when the first camera 109 is active and off when the second
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`camera unit 110 is active. The difference of these images is obtained by difference
`
`calculation unit 111 and used by feature data generation unit 103 to determine
`
`gestures. Id. at ¶¶ 34-35 (citing Ex. 1004 , Fig. 2, 11:9-39, 11:43-51, 10:57-66).
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 2).
`
`4.
`
`Next, I described Numazaki’s third embodiment and its use of the same
`
`feature data generation unit as the first embodiment to convert gestures into
`
`commands. Ex. 1003, ¶ 31. I detailed how this embodiment uses a shape memory
`
`unit 332 to identify when the user has performed a pre-registered gesture and
`
`instructs the device to implement a command corresponding to it, such as
`
`“instructing the power ON/OFF of the TV, the lighting equipment, etc.” Id. at ¶ 36
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 at 31:3-10).
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`I then described how the fifth embodiment uses image capture for
`
`5.
`
`videoconference applications with reference to Numazaki’s Fig. 46. This
`
`embodiment pairs the same reflected light extraction unit 102 of the first
`
`embodiment with a visible light photo-detection array 351, using these two imaging
`
`components to subtract all extraneous, background image information from the
`
`captured video of subject to arrive at image information containing only the subject.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 39:6-16, 39:12-60, 40:32-35).
`
`Id. at (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 46).
`
`6.
`
`Next, my original declaration stated several reasons why the third and
`
`fifth embodiments both rely upon the same reflected light extraction unit 102 from
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`the first embodiment. Id. at ¶¶ 40-42. I then discussed Nonaka’s image capture
`
`gesture teachings (id. at ¶¶ 46-47) and explained why a PHOSITA would have been
`
`motivated by Nonaka to combine Numazaki’s third and fifth embodiments in its
`
`eighth embodiment laptop “such that a user could perform a gesture command
`
`(pursuant to its third embodiment) that causes video capture to initiate (pursuant to
`
`its fifth embodiment). Id. at ¶¶ 48-51.
`
`7.
`
`I understand Patent Owner raises an issue related to the proposed
`
`combination requiring the output of reflected light extraction unit 102 be processed
`
`by (1) the third embodiment’s feature data generation unit when detecting gestures
`
`and (2) the fifth embodiment’s feature data generation unit when implementing
`
`videoconference functionality. Paper 10, 12-16. Specifically, citing its expert, Patent
`
`Owner argues that the petition “does not explain how these specialized units would
`
`operate simultaneously or whether different units would operate at different times or
`
`what that timing functionality would require.” Paper 10, 16 (citing Ex. 2002, ¶ 58).
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner and its expert misread the combination, which expressly
`
`defines the sequential nature in which the third and fifth embodiment units separately
`
`process unit 102’s output. The petition states “a PHOSITA would have been
`
`motivated to implement this gesture recognition as a means of allowing the user to
`
`initiate (or turn on) the fifth embodiment’s videoconferencing functionality.” Paper
`
`1, 31. The combination proposes the gesture detecting functionality of the third
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`embodiment is employed until an image capture gesture is detected. Then, the
`
`system
`
`transitions
`
`into Numazaki’s
`
`fifth embodiment videoconferencing
`
`functionality. Accordingly, the proposed combination utilized the gesture detecting
`
`processing of the third embodiment and the videoconference processing of the fifth
`
`embodiment separately and sequentially. Indeed, the output of reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102 would be processed by the third embodiment’s gesture detecting
`
`block until an image capture gesture is detected and would then be processed by the
`
`fifth embodiment’s videoconferencing block. The output of reflected light extraction
`
`unit 102 would not be processed by both the third embodiment and the fifth
`
`embodiment blocks at the same time because the first acts as a trigger for the second
`
`to occur.
`
`9.
`
`Given the separate, but sequential processing tasks Numazaki assigns
`
`to these two embodiments, it would be well within the capabilities of a PHOSITA
`
`to utilize the same output by two separate processing blocks to implement the
`
`proposed combination. A PHOSITA would understand there are no technical
`
`barriers to arranging multiple distinct processing units that separately process the
`
`same output of a single unit. Indeed, I understand neither Patent Owner nor its expert
`
`identify any technical barriers to arranging Numazaki’s features such that the output
`
`of reflected light extraction unit 102 is processed separately by (1) the third
`
`embodiment’s feature data generation unit when detecting gestures and (2) the fifth
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`embodiment’s feature data generation unit when implementing videoconference
`
`functionality.
`
`II.
`
`Patent Owner ignores the benefit of initiating video capture from
`beyond the reach of Numazaki’s laptop
`10.
`I understand Patent Owner first takes issue with the Petition’s premise
`
`that Numazaki’s videoconference functionality “would be improved by allowing
`
`users to position themselves in place before the video camera and initiate video
`
`capture through a gesture, rather than a physical input or timer mechanism.” Paper
`
`10, 18-19 (quoting Paper 1, 31). It argues that a user of Numazaki’s videoconference
`
`system would be “within reach of Numazaki’s laptop before and during a
`
`videoconference” and would, accordingly, have no need for an image capture
`
`gesture to initiate image capture. Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s expert argues
`
`that because a user has to physically interact with the laptop to dial a telephone
`
`number, that “user would already be positioned ‘in place’ for the videoconference”
`
`and would have no need for the proposed gesture initiation. Ex. 2002, ¶ 62. Mr.
`
`Occhiogrosso concludes that because the user must physically interact with the
`
`laptop before the videoconference begins, that user would never move and would
`
`remain “within reach of Numazaki’s laptop before and during a videoconference.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 63 (emphasis added). I disagree.
`
`11. A PHOSITA would have understood there are countless examples of
`
`videoconference scenarios in which the user would desire to not sit in front of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`laptop and within arm’s reach. Take, for example, a lecture in which the lecturer is
`
`standing, rather than seated. This common scenario benefits from allowing the user
`
`to stand some distance from the camera such that they are fully captured in the
`
`camera’s field of view. A PHOSITA would have understood that capturing a
`
`standing lecturer in this scenario would generally require that lecturer to be standing
`
`a distance far enough from the camera that the user is not within reach of the camera
`
`and able to manually control it. Another example is a tutorial in which the speaker
`
`is demonstrating the use of a product that requires a broader field of view than is
`
`provided by the laptop camera were the speaker seated before the laptop. Indeed, the
`
`videoconference scenario Mr. Occhiogrosso envisions—a user seated before the
`
`laptop and able to physically control the laptop—is most commonly associated with
`
`the camera capturing only the user’s upper body (e.g., shoulders and head). This
`
`field of view is adequate for many videoconference applications, but it would be
`
`inadequate for many others. As I discuss above, many common scenarios remove
`
`the speaker from close proximity of Numazaki’s laptop such that the user requires
`
`some ability to remotely initiate image capture. Indeed, Numazaki’s Fig. 48
`
`illustrates the fifth embodiment videoconference functionality and depicts a
`
`videoconference participant that appears to be removed from the camera by some
`
`distance:
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 48. A PHOSITA would have understood that the person illustrated in
`
`Fig. 48 is not seated before the camera. The participant is visible from the waist up,
`
`which is a larger field of view than is generally possible with a participant seated
`
`within arm’s reach of the camera. In sum, the proposed combination assumes the
`
`user needs to remotely trigger image capture, and a PHOSITA would have
`
`recognized there are numerous scenarios in which such remote trigger functionality
`
`is required. Accordingly, I disagree with Mr. Occhiogrosso that simply because a
`
`user may initially physically interact with the laptop to dial a number or otherwise
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`prepare the laptop for a videoconference, that user would necessarily remain within
`
`arm’s reach when image capture is initiated.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER IGNORES THAT NONAKA EXPRESSLY
`TEACHES THAT GESTURES PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY
`THAN TIMERS
`12.
`I understand Patent Owner challenges whether gesture-based image
`
`capture initiation provides greater freedom than timers. Paper 10, 20-21. In my
`
`original declaration, I discussed the many known ways to remotely initiate image
`
`capture functionality, such as self-timer mechanisms. Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. I discussed
`
`Nonaka’s express teachings that gestures improve upon traditional timer-based
`
`remote initiation. Id. A PHOSITA would have agreed with Nonaka’s conclusion that
`
`gesture-based initiation is better in many scenarios and would have been motivated
`
`to implement Nonaka’s gesture-based solution with or in lieu of timers. As I
`
`explained in my initial declaration, the goal of initiating image capture from a remote
`
`position is “ensuring the user is able to get in position and prepared before the video
`
`capture begins.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 49. By initiating image capture with a gesture, a user
`
`retains complete control over image capture by conditioning it upon the user’s own
`
`preparation and positioning. Using a self-timer mechanism strips some level of
`
`control from the user, forcing the user to predict the amount of time requires to get
`
`positioned and creating downsides for predicting imprecisely. For example, were the
`
`user to set the timer for too short a period, image capture would initiate before the
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`user is in position and ready to begin. To avoid this scenario, self-timers force the
`
`user to over-estimate the required time, leading to frustrating waiting periods in
`
`which the user is ready, but is forced to wait out the remainder of the timer period.
`
`Nonaka’s gesture-based initiation allows the user to take all the time necessary to
`
`get in position and permits initiating image capture as soon as the user is ready,
`
`avoiding the frustrating waiting period associated with timers.
`
`IV. NUMAZAKI’S UNIT 102 IS FIXED IN RELATION TO CAMERA 351
`13.
`I understand the Patent Owner challenges the Petition’s evidence that
`
`unit 102 is fixed in relation to camera 351 in the proposed combination, satisfying
`
`Claim 4. Paper 10, 23-24. The Petition set forth that Numazaki’s reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102 and digital camera 351 are arranged “side-by-side such that they
`
`have overlapping fields of view.” Paper 1, 38 (further citing Ex. 1004 at 39:4-44 for
`
`its teaching that they are “arranged in parallel”) (emphasis added). I understand
`
`Patent Owner and its expert focus on the “arranged in parallel” teaching, ignoring
`
`entirely the Petition’s argument that unit 102 and camera 351 have “overlapping
`
`fields of view.” Paper 10, 23-24; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 70-71. Patent Owner and its expert
`
`are wrong to ignore this important aspect of the fifth embodiment. That it requires
`
`overlapping fields of view is key to concluding Numazaki’s unit 102 and camera
`
`351 are fixed in relation to each other.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`In my initial declaration, I referred to Fig. 46 of Numazaki to explain
`
`14.
`
`its fifth embodiment uses a two-camera reflected light extraction unit 102 in
`
`conjunction with a separate visible light photo-detection array 351:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 52 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 46). I explained that the functionality of the
`
`fifth embodiment requires defining which portions of video captured by camera 351
`
`are retained, therefore a PHOSITA would have understood components 102 and 351
`
`“are both forward facing and have overlapping fields of view” because if they did
`
`not, “the output of the first unit could not be used to define which portions of the
`
`second unit’s output should be retained.” Id. In other words, to perform the basic
`
`function of the fifth embodiment, unit 102 and camera 351 must have and maintain
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`overlapping fields of view. Were one to move in relation to the other, it would no
`
`longer be possible for the output of unit 102 to define which portions of the camera
`
`351 output should be retained.
`
`15.
`
`I understand Patent Owner’s expert admitted that unit 102 and camera
`
`351 must retain overlapping fields of view in order to “satisfy the intended purpose”
`
`of Numazaki’s fifth embodiment. Ex. 1019, 23:21-24:22. I understand Mr.
`
`Occhiogrosso also admitted that fixing unit 102 and camera 351 in relation to one
`
`another ensures they retain overlapping fields of view. Id. at 25:7-14. Finally, I
`
`understand Mr. Occhiogrosso confirmed that he was not aware of any teaching in
`
`Numazaki that suggests unit 102 and camera 351 are not fixed in relation to on
`
`another. Id. at 25:18-26:2. Accordingly, because (1) the fifth embodiment requires
`
`unit 102 and camera 351 to retain overlapping fields of view, (2) fixing them retains
`
`overlapping fields of view, and (3) there is no suggestion that they are not fixed, a
`
`PHOSITA would have considered unit 102 and camera 351 fixed in relation to each
`
`other.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`16.
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that
`
`these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949
`like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Date:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _______________________________
`Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Apple EX1018 Page 14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
